nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting GZed (Reply 199):
I see. Well that's ridiculous. Why even include them if they are just made up lines based on the theory of straight line flight?

To give people a visual example of how the final data was calculated. As evidenced in this thread, many people have difficulties understanding what these arcs represent.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 195):
If it's top secret, we'll never know exactly what it is that they have or don't have

Strange why do we know about the obviously NRO military 10cm resolving cameras which DigitalGlobe doesn't have. I'm sure there is some super secret stuff but I doubt you want that to fly on a commercial sat where someone might swipe it or take a peek at something they are not supposed to see. (That would be bad for keeping a secret although the US isn't very good at doing that lately) Although it is true we wouldn't know but I doubt DigitalGlobe would get to use it for their commercial branded side of things. (That would be a pretty killer deal, don't pay for it, get to use classified tech to improve your commercial venture)

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 194):
Would this match be with the 1:11 ping?

Seems like Inmarsat has reason to be certain of where 9M-MRO went. Even early in the flight.

Never heard about the calibration thing before. Also I like this note from the same article you posted,

Quote:

If the Inmarsat estimates are accurate, it would have been impossible for the plane to have landed before its satellite transmitter sent the final ping at 8:11 a.m., almost seven hours after its last known position as it left Malaysian airspace, according to McLaughlin’s account. Because the 777 burns more fuel at lower altitude, it also suggests the plane remained at cruising altitude.

Which is why I've been saying if the plane shadowed another plane or did a nap of the earth type tactic it wouldn't jive with the sat ping data they see.

Quoting GZed (Reply 199):
I see. Well that's ridiculous. Why even include them if they are just made up lines based on the theory of straight line flight?

Because as the quote from the news article if they didn't fly in a direct path they wouldn't have made it to the known last ping arc. So it is a good illustrative diagram of what the intermediate points might look like if we knew them (not much different).

Quoting jox (Reply 202):
But surely NTSB has access to all the real data from Inmarsat. Which makes them more than just an "example". Since we don't actually know where the plane went, everything is more or less educated guessing, but I would say that NTSB can make more educated guesses than most of us here. If they say (based on the non-public data) that the plane went away from the satellite at a certain speed (constant or not), in a pattern that best matches those hourly "example" points - I am tending to believe that they are fairly certain. Of course there exist a similar path facing north, but that's not the point here.

If the plane flew on another (straight) track - still matching the "away from the sat at this speed", it would have had to fly ridiculously slow (and obviously not end up at the point they are searching now).

Except there is a difference between the NTSB plotting the intermediate points (Which they probably did internally) and the user who made that image based on the end results of the NTSB high probability plot. The end result would probably look almost the same except there is no actual raw data being plotted in the diagram the user made and it just draws where the intermediate points would be.

The shorter distant to the arc parts represent the slower flying part. (And I don't think they calculated the velocity from the pings but the early part of the arc represents that slow flying option)

The arcs can be highly confusing but all you need to know is that where the red line is drawn represents the min/max cruising speed with the fuel quantity to end up on the right position the sat reported at the last ping. (I think I got that right maybe...)

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:19:46]
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:14 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 197):
Those "earlier pings" on the map are labeled "Example based on NTSB high probability tracks." They're examples, not real ping data.

But surely NTSB has access to all the real data from Inmarsat. Which makes them more than just an "example". Since we don't actually know where the plane went, everything is more or less educated guessing, but I would say that NTSB can make more educated guesses than most of us here. If they say (based on the non-public data) that the plane went away from the satellite at a certain speed (constant or not), in a pattern that best matches those hourly "example" points - I am tending to believe that they are fairly certain. Of course there exist a similar path facing north, but that's not the point here.

If the plane flew on another (straight) track - still matching the "away from the sat at this speed", it would have had to fly ridiculously slow (and obviously not end up at the point they are searching now).
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:19 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 198):
We do, an Inmarsat employee said on the record that they plotted 7 of the pings for investigators. It was in a news article quoted somewhere upthread or in a previous thread. They have gone on record with that, though.

This seems to be the best source, Fox interview of an Inmarsat Senior Vice President quoted earlier:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/20...-could-help-find-malaysia-airliner

He confirms that there were 7 pings, one each hour on average (I wonder why he says on average) and the 8th ping is missing.

He doesn't confirm that they plotted 7 of the pings.

Quoting jox (Reply 202):
But surely NTSB has access to all the real data from Inmarsat. Which makes them more than just an "example".

The chart is not an NTSB chart.

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:20:36]

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:40:53]
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:23 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 203):
The chart is not an NTSB chart.

No, but it is "Based on NTSB high probability tracks" - which was my point.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:23 pm

Inmarsat apparently matched the first two pings with ACARS and primary radar data as a calibration and validation. They would have been the 1:11 and 2:11 pings.

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:24:07]
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:26 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 203):
He confirms that there were 7 pings each hour on average (I wonder why he says on average) and the 8th ping is missing.

He doesn't confirm that they plotted 7 of the pings.

Here, Bloomberg does: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html

Quote:
Engineers at Inmarsat Plc, whose satellite picked up the pings, plotted seven positions for the Boeing Co. 777-200ER on March 8, Chris McLaughlin, a company spokesman, said in an interview. The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said.

There was confusion about "over the equator" in this thread, but clearly the author meant the satellite is over the equator (as it is geostationary)
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
GZed
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:21 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:28 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 201):
Because as the quote from the news article if they didn't fly in a direct path they wouldn't have made it to the known last ping arc. So it is a good illustrative diagram of what the intermediate points might look like if we knew them (not much different).

Why do you keep suggesting that deviations from straight flight are not possible because it would result in the plane not having enough fuel to make it to "the last know ping arc"? You've mentioned something like this 3 or 4 times, incorrectly. You seem to summarize that the plane must have flown straight because otherwise if would not have had enough fuel to make it to the estimated end point along the arc.

In actual fact its their assumption that it flew in a straight line that results in their final location guesstimate. If it didn't fly in a straight line then it could have ended up anywhere along the red line by 8:11am.
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:28 pm

There was a 1:07 ACARS gps position to be matched with a 1:11 ping, and a 2:15 primary radar position to be matched with a 2:11 ping, I think.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14655
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:29 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 176):
The IOR satellite coverage actually is overlapped by one of the POR's coverage to the east and one of the AOR's coverage to the west. The fact that there is an overlap but that the other two satellites did not detect the last "ping" is what they used to construct the two arcs.

SITA have defined coverage maps for the ACARS network, the on aircraft system takes the aircrafts current position from the IRS and that determines from a lookup table what VHF/HF frequency to tune to, and what satellite to point to. Often when starting aircraft up cold without the IRS aligned, you will not have a satellite connection.

I am not surprised pings were not received by two satellites, as the aircrafts antenna is only pointed at one satellite.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mouldypete
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:59 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:32 pm

Quoting LTC8K6 (Reply 205):
Inmarsat apparently matched the first two pings with ACARS and primary radar data as a calibration and validation. They would have been the 1:11 and 2:11 pings.

Presumably the 1:11am ping back correlated to the 1:07 ACARS message giving location, heading, speed etc. travelling on the correct track to PEK and the 2:11am ping, four minutes before the MH370 left radar coverage whilst it was heading NW?
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:34 pm

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 206):
Here, Bloomberg does: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0....html

Thanks, that nails it down. There are 7 plots.

I found also a Daily Telegraph article, that clearly talks about the timing of the signals, suggesting time-of-flight type of distance measurement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ow-it-could-have-been-avoided.html

Quote:
Fortunately, however, the Classic Aero system also includes another terminal which operates independently of the switches in the cockpit, and 'pings' Inmarsat's network at regular intervals to synchronise timing information. This terminal plays no role in transmitting ACARS data, and simply serves to keep the connection to the network alive. But there is no way that it can be switched off unless the plane itself loses power, according to Inmarsat.

The company’s engineers discovered that the Classic Aero terminal on flight MH370 continued to ping the network for at least five hours after the aircraft left Malaysian airspace, and that, during that time, the distance travelled by the pings was increasing, indicating that the aircraft was still moving.

"The timing of the messages indicates that a plane is moving, but it’s a one-dimensional fix. So you cannot deduce immediately its position or anything like that. But the timing of the messages can give you clues as to its movement," said Pinto.
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:35 pm

Quoting GZed (Reply 207):
Why do you keep suggesting that deviations from straight flight are not possible because it would result in the plane not having enough fuel to make it to "the last know ping arc"? You've mentioned something like this 3 or 4 times, incorrectly.

I agree. Technically they could have flown in circles for hours and then intersected the 0811L arc fairly close to Malaysia. But this does not agree with the INMARSAT statement that the aircraft was flying away from the satellite the entire time. By calculating a straight-line distance between arcs, it is possible to calculate a straight-line speed. If that speed varies between pings, you can assume they either slowed down/sped up on purpose or that they made course changes. If that speed is constant, you can assume they are flying in a straight line, or making the exact same course changes each time between pings, which is unlikely.

So, if the data points to a constant speed, then a straight shot from the last radar contact with the fuel range in mind is the most plausible scenario to examine. This does not take their altitude into account as it is unknown, or any other factors that might affect range - so there are truly very many possibilities still left to explore, if this comes up empty.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:36 pm

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 203):
He confirms that there were 7 pings each hour on average

7 pings, one per hour (on average) I believe. No 8th ping. He concludes from that that the plane flew for 7+ hours and then ran out of fuel. That may be stretching what can be inferred from the data.

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:39:40]
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
cand
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:05 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 156):
So that the computers were flying the thing?

Indeed, I meant the subsequent turns at VAMPI and at (or after) IGREX to some north or south destination. If a/p was flying the plane, it was blindly following the waypoints. But why program them in the first place? If they had mechanical/electrical trouble after IGARI, the normal reaction is to turn back to KUL, not program these waypoints taking them nowhere.

I was reading about the 777: It has 3 VHF units, 2 HF units, 1 SATCOM, 3 panels to control them. Plus ACARS and ADS. All these are powered from 4 DC busses, which are powered from 2 inter-changable AC busses. From all these, when both main alternators and the APU-driven generator fail, the one to shed is the SATCOM. So how come we still have SATCOM working and none of the others?
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:40 pm

Quoting GZed (Reply 207):
Why do you keep suggesting that deviations from straight flight are not possible because it would result in the plane not having enough fuel to make it to "the last know ping arc"? You've mentioned something like this 3 or 4 times, incorrectly. You seem to summarize that the plane must have flown straight because otherwise if would not have had enough fuel to make it to the estimated end point along the arc.

In actual fact its their assumption that it flew in a straight line that results in their final location guesstimate. If it didn't fly in a straight line then it could have ended up anywhere along the red line by 8:11am.

The entire red line uses a basically direct flight assumption just one at the minimum speed and another at the maximum speed. If you make a significant deviation from a direct at cruise altitude flight (say trying to hide from radar by flying nap of the earth style or shadowing another plane and following it off to the west and then turning back to the east) it wouldn't be possible to reach the line at any point. (Near the short end you could in theory fly past it a maximum speed and then turn back but you would still have to end up somewhere on the line)

Your getting confused by the lines and my discussion about the beyond the red arc north west conspiracy theories, if you do a crazy zig zag or land on the ground there is no way to reach the same arc in the areas discussed. Some deviations are allowed and it depends on where your looking at but at the furthest point on the arc you must travel in a mostly direct path as there isn't enough fuel to do anything else. (The parts of the arc where the distance to the last known point is short has more room for crazy manoeuvres but luckily those are well away from any conspiracy theories)

Or to make things simpler if you want to end up in the last ping area's furthest point from the start you must travel in a direct path. If you want to land on the arc at any point before this furthest point your limited by the same length cord to the outermost point and can draw whatever line you like provided it doesn't exceed the length (fuel of the plane) and still lands on the arc. (Sorry for any confusion but you have to be very direct when dealing with illogical conspiracy theories which are not even inside the red end ping area)

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 212):
I agree. Technically they could have flown in circles for hours and then intersected the 0811L arc fairly close to Malaysia. But this does not agree with the INMARSAT statement that the aircraft was flying away from the satellite the entire time. By calculating a straight-line distance between arcs, it is possible to calculate a straight-line speed. If that speed varies between pings, you can assume they either slowed down/sped up on purpose or that they made course changes. If that speed is constant, you can assume they are flying in a straight line, or making the exact same course changes each time between pings, which is unlikely.

So, if the data points to a constant speed, then a straight shot from the last radar contact with the fuel range in mind is the most plausible scenario to examine. This does not take their altitude into account as it is unknown, or any other factors that might affect range - so there are truly very many possibilities still left to explore, if this comes up empty.

I think I got a bit fed up with the far north west theories and lopped off a bunch of pre-conditions I used to say because they get distorted in all the wrong ways. Only the furthest points on the arc from the start require a direct path. Anything shorter allows for increasing amounts of wiggle room. The plane still has to end up on the arc by the end and it is unlikely it could fly close to the earth/water, land in a hidden airfield, or shadow another airliner off into the far west and still make it to the arc.

Although as we know inmarsat shows it moving fairly constantly so any major deviations would have been seen and circling is isn't going to produce a consistent distance/speed away from the sat. Anything other than a normal cruise would reduce efficiency and tighten the search to the near areas. (Which is well away from all the conspiracy landing sites and the such)

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:49:30]



Quoting cand (Reply 214):
I was reading about the 777: It has 3 VHF units, 2 HF units, 1 SATCOM, 3 panels to control them. Plus ACARS and ADS. All these are powered from 4 DC busses, which are powered from 2 inter-changable AC busses. From all these, when both main alternators and the APU-driven generator fail, the one to shed is the SATCOM. So how come we still have SATCOM working and none of the others?

What is the layout of the electrical bay any-ways (the rack positions and such for each system) Any complete wire harness diagrams to stare at.

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:53:30]



Quoting hivue (Reply 217):
The SATCOM communications box never lost its supply of power and was never actively turned off (breaker pulled).

You would think they would pull the power on everything related to black boxes, satcom, vhf, hf if they knew what they were doing but I guess if they just did stuff from the cockpit it would just be ACARS, transponder, and not the satcom modem itself. (In the 777 is the CVR/DFDR circuit breakers not in the cockpit because if that is the case then that is good for the chances of the recorders still having something even if everything else was deliberate)

[Edited 2014-03-21 08:56:53]



Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 219):
Since it appears that the current is basically eastward, I would expect some debris to start to wash ashore before too much longer. I cannot believe the thoroughnees of this investigation. It got off to a slow start I think due to a lack of cooperation between nationalities but now appears to be spearheaded by the Australians who have to be very careful of their political and business ties to the Malaysians and Indonesians.

With the entire world watching it would be nice to have some resolution, especially for the families of the missing.


Basically eastward and directly eastward are two different things near the shore lines according to a chart from an earlier thread the prevailing currents diverge and it could send debris in two direction away from land (Or it could make it through). After that it might very well end up in those "garbage patches" in the middle of the oceans which are kinda huge really. But that being said the AMSA search communication has been excellent and they post updates regularly and almost as they happen without making highly confusing statements.

Everything should be focused on finding the plane as fast as possible for the families and to ensure that this doesn't happen again regardless of the ultimate cause.

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:02:19]
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:46 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 213):
7 pings, one per hour (on average) I believe

Yes, that is what I meant. I corrected my reply.
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:49 pm

Quoting cand (Reply 214):
So how come we still have SATCOM working and none of the others?

The SATCOM communications box never lost its supply of power and was never actively turned off (breaker pulled).
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
cand
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 9:05 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:52 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 217):

So there was no malfunction at IGARI.
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:55 pm

Since it appears that the current is basically eastward, I would expect some debris to start to wash ashore before too much longer. I cannot believe the thoroughnees of this investigation. It got off to a slow start I think due to a lack of cooperation between nationalities but now appears to be spearheaded by the Australians who have to be very careful of their political and business ties to the Malaysians and Indonesians.

With the entire world watching it would be nice to have some resolution, especially for the families of the missing.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:59 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 125):
No it still got to that ping area which is very far how exactly do you get there without flying there. This is why having it stationary would have resulted in different pings (including the end one) and the end area would not even come close to getting near conspiracy land.

Can someone explain to me what this means? As far as I know a stationary object would result in the same ping timelag because the distance between the two object doesn't change. Did someone change the laws of physics or did I misunderstand what is being written above?

Quoting tomlee (Reply 113):
If the plane was stationary for all seven pings it would result in a totally differnt arc estimate which would look very unusual and would be a lot shorter than the final ping we see which is just about when the plane would have run out of fuel.

If the plane was stationary, it would give the same ping times... that ping time equates to (if we go by the last ping circle), a circle centered at 64E over the equator with a radius of about 2550NM.

Quoting jox (Reply 173):
a) It is "angle based" only to that extent that it is only ONE of their satellites that has picked up signals from the plane. I.e. it has to be within an angle that no of their other sats also covers.

b) The radius of the "arc" is based not on angle, but on transmission time of the signal (time between the signal is sent from the sat until the answer from the plane comes back - divided by 2).

Not sure what the correct term would be, but it's distance based only. Hence the target solution for a given ping (except for directly below the satellite or beyond the horizon) would be a circle centered at where the satellite is over the earth's surface. The final ping is given to be at the 40deg circle, what this means is 40 degrees of elevation from the earth's horizon to the satellite...
The arc, or red arc, shows the part of the 40deg circle that comes within the maximum range circle of the flight based on the fuel load and last radar contact... except for the parts where they know it's not there, or where it would be utterly ridiculous for it to be there,

Quoting tomlee (Reply 215):
Your getting confused by the lines and my discussion about the beyond the red arc north west conspiracy theories,

I hope you didn't think I am or was a believer of the "beyond the red arc northwest conspiracy theory", if yes, you may have misunderstood what I wrote.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
jox
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:39 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:01 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 219):
I would expect some debris to start to wash ashore before too much longer

If we assume that there actually are some debris at the place they currently are searching at, I would say it takes at least 5-7 weeks until the currents have drifted the debris to the closest Austrailan coast. This is FAR out from the coast!
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:06 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 220):
Can someone explain to me what this means? As far as I know a stationary object would result in the same ping timelag because the distance between the two object doesn't change. Did someone change the laws of physics or did I misunderstand what is being written above?

No your misreading my posting, a stationary object would not consistently move away from the sat so the pings including the end ping would not match reality. We know the pings were moving and a stationary plane can't really move while also being stationary. (That is breaking the laws of physics)

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 220):
If the plane was stationary, it would give the same ping times... that ping time equates to (if we go by the last ping circle), a circle centered at 64E over the equator with a radius of about 2550NM.

Yes it would give the same pings but it could not physically be on the same arc as their estimate would see it stop far before the 7th ping and they would update accordingly. They would also note that the plane appeared to cease moving which again isn't what reality has the pings doing.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 220):
I hope you didn't think I am or was a believer of the "beyond the red arc northwest conspiracy theory", if yes, you may have misunderstood what I wrote.

Covert landing (Being stationary and intact) is included in that group of theories.

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:07:06]

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:07:20]



Also while everyone wishes and hopes for everyone on board to still be alive the simple matter is that it isn't going to be that case and the families and relatives of those onboard don't need media reports saying credible sources and experts think the plane landed or the plane was stolen in some way. All these serve to do is generate false hope and prolong the mental pain and anguish people are going through.

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:11:38]
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:07 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 220):
If the plane was stationary, it would give the same ping times... that ping time equates to (if we go by the last ping circle), a circle centered at 64E over the equator with a radius of about 2550NM.

Constrained to two arcs by the fact that adjacent, overlapping Inmarsat satellites for whatever reason did not pick up the last "ping" (and possibly how far the plane could have flown on the fuel it had, etc.).
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
rj777
Posts: 1803
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:12 pm

What I would like to know, is any of these search aircraft capable of being supported by an aircraft carrier? If so, that would go a long way towards shortening the amount of time it would take to get to the site.
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:13 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
We know the pings were moving

Someone remind me how we know this. The last ping is all the data that has been released publically. Did the Inmarsat guy say in the interview that they know the pings showed movement based on their data?

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:14:20]
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
QualityDr
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 9:57 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:15 pm

Quoting GZed (Reply 12):
If the distances at each hourly ping do not match the "straight line" theory then we know the aircraft made addition course changes, and we would know that it turned towards the satellite or away from it. Additionally we would know how significant the course change was based on the amount of deviation away or towards, since the last ping.

Any significant course change reduces the maximum final distance away from the point of origin, so this is very important information.

(Putting on my math modeling hat...)

Indeed, it's a fairly simple algorithm to wring information from successive ping-rings, assuming the plane flew at a (nearly) constant airspeed. Though such an algorithm likely doesn't give a single answer, it could significantly narrow down the total to some reasonable answers, and may even rule out one arc or the other. All by itself that's hugely useful, as we don't have unlimited resources to execute searches.

(Putting math modeler hat away next to propeller beanie and tinfoil hat...)

QD

PS Sorry I'm a bit late w/ this reply; being away from my desk for a couple of hours means lots of posts to wade through! QD)
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:18 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 225):
Someone remind me how we know this. The last ping is all the data that has been released publically. Did the Inmarsat guy say in the interview that they know the plane was moving based on their data?



"Engineers at Inmarsat Plc, whose satellite picked up the pings, plotted seven positions for the Boeing Co. 777-200ER on March 8, Chris McLaughlin, a company spokesman, said in an interview. The plane flew steadily away from the satellite over the equator while pinging, McLaughlin said. "

This is duplicated a lot and there are many news reports on the interviews and the same reports posted here but for your convenience here is the link as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...over-ocean-inmarsat-estimates.html
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:18 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
No your misreading my posting, a stationary object would not consistently move away from the sat so the pings including the end ping would not match reality. We know the pings were moving and a stationary plane can't really move while also being stationary. (That is breaking the laws of physics)
OK, sorry, your explanation above seems so far away from:

Quoting tomlee (Reply 125):
This is why having it stationary would have resulted in different pings (including the end one) and the end area would not even come close to getting near conspiracy land.

Both of what I quoted cannot be correct. Which one is correct? Reply 125 or Reply 222?

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
Covert landing (Being stationary and intact) is included in that block of theories.

Did I mention that? If yes, please remind me where...

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
Yes it would give the same pings but it could not physically be on the same arc as their estimate would see it stop far before the 7th ping and they would update accordingly. They would also note that the plane appeared to cease moving which again isn't what reality has the pings doing.

If the aircraft is moving along that 40deg inclination circle, it would give the same ping distance as if it was stationary on the 40deg inclination circle (while it isn't)... correct? So why would we see it stop far before the 7th ping?
If the aircraft simply flew towards the southernmost end of the northern red arc (near JHG/Jinghong China) which takes about 2 hours, and then flew along the red arc towards the northwest, and remaining on the 40deg inclination circle, the subsequent pings would be the same as if the aircraft was stationary (while it isn't).

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:20:29]

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:22:06]
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:20 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 224):
What I would like to know, is any of these search aircraft capable of being supported by an aircraft carrier? If so, that would go a long way towards shortening the amount of time it would take to get to the site.

Not feasable. A P-8 is a 737-800 and a P-3 is a Lockheed Electra. C-130's are huge turboprops. None can land on a carrier deck.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:20 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
Also while everyone wishes and hopes for everyone on board to still be alive the simple matter is that it isn't going to be that case and the families and relatives of those onboard don't need media reports saying credible sources and experts think the plane landed or the plane was stolen in some way. All these serve to do is generate false hope and prolong the mental pain and anguish people are going through.

Actually, the reality is that we simply don't know- and to state otherwise is actually IMO irresponsible.

Whilst that may be the most probable outcome, if there's one thing this event has taught us is to not assume anything.

Even the Malaysians were at pain to express this was still being treated as a SAR mission in the press conference today.
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:24 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
OK, sorry, your explanation above seems so far away from:

A stationary object would result in stationary pings (different pings, than what know to be real)

Do you understand what I mean by different (not different location but different than reality) I think I already said this but you didn't quote it.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
Did I mention that? If yes, please remind me where...

See summary posts in previous threads its a pretty common thing that pops up here. Grouped together because they are all conspiracy theories.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
If the aircraft is moving along that 40deg inclination circle, it would give the same ping distance as if it was stationary on the 40deg inclination circle (while it isn't)... correct? So why would we see it stop far before the 7th ping?
If the aircraft simply flew towards the southernmost end of the northern red arc (near JHG/Jinghong China) which takes about 2 hours, and then flew along the red arc towards the northwest, and remaining on the 40deg inclination circle, the subsequent pings would be the same as if the aircraft was stationary (while it isn't).

Except the plane did not move along a 40deg circle as that would not show match up as the interview said as consistently moving away with the pings. It flew consistently away so it was not running specially along the arc (The arc is not the flight path)

(Done, the inmarsat interview killed a lot of "theories", there dead, that is it, the end)
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:26 pm

Quoting qualitydr (Reply 226):
Indeed, it's a fairly simple algorithm to wring information from successive ping-rings, assuming the plane flew at a (nearly) constant airspeed.

What we do know is its ground speed (not airspeed) from the satellite, heavily averaged of course because of the 1hr period of the pings.

If this speed between pings stays relatively constant (+/- error, winds aloft), we can make the assumption that the aircraft is flying in a straight line. I believe this is why the NTSB believes a straight-line track is most probable.

As I said, there IS the possibility that they made course changes in between each ping that would cause their ground speed away from the sat to appear relatively constant across 1 hour intervals, but the scenario is highly unlikely as this would imply foreknowledge of the satellite pings on behalf of the actors.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:29 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 230):
Actually, the reality is that we simply don't know- and to state otherwise is actually IMO irresponsible.

This is one of those cases where yes, we simply don't know.
To pass them off as already dead, is irresponsible.
At the same time, if we already know this was an accident... (eg: if the plane simply went on, and crash landed in the pacific ocean instead), then yes, realistically, they'd all likely to be dead by now if not found. But, it is morally wrong to assume that there will be no survivors, unless we have evidence pointing to the likelihood that the impact was not survivable.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:29 pm

Quoting liquidair (Reply 230):
Actually, the reality is that we simply don't know- and to state otherwise is actually IMO irresponsible.

Whilst that may be the most probable outcome, if there's one thing this event has taught us is to not assume anything.

Even the Malaysians were at pain to express this was still being treated as a SAR mission in the press conference today.

The SAR search looking for potential survivors in the water even after weeks is responsible. Looking for airports and landing strips is not responsible. The most probable outcome is backed by history, statistics, existing evidence, ...

How many planes have disappeared for weeks and then turned out to be stolen and everyone lived. The Malaysians should not be seriously considering conspiracy theories as it is a waste of resources which will be directed away from a more logical and methodical search for the plane wreckage.

Allowing any theory to go is going to cause a waste of time, resources, money, manpower which in my opinion is irresponsible.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):
This is one of those cases where yes, we simply don't know.
To pass them off as already dead, is irresponsible.
At the same time, if we already know this was an accident... (eg: if the plane simply went on, and crash landed in the pacific ocean instead), then yes, realistically, they'd all likely to be dead by now if not found. But, it is morally wrong to assume that there will be no survivors, unless we have evidence pointing to the likelihood that the impact was not survivable.

I'm not passing them off as dead it is just extremely probable. Any ocean/land search should be as expedient as possible should the unlikely event that someone survived. However looking for hidden airports and a stashed away plane is pure fiction and if the more likely event of someone surviving in the water or on land occurred while you where off looking for a hidden airplane that you presume landed the survivor could easily expire from the delay and diverted resources in chasing a red herring.

In my view if everyone is alive and safe and sound with a perfectly intact plane then that situation is not a concern until someone comes up with demands or something else. But if someone is out there in the ocean or land in that extremely but more likely case where they survived a crash they need to be found now and fast. (Entertaining landing theories would divert resources away from this and that is morally wrong)

One case is so unlikely it is basically impossible while another is basically impossible but has had extremely rare incidents of single or few survivors.

[Edited 2014-03-21 09:35:39]
 
photolppt
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:17 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:31 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 229):
Not feasable. A P-8 is a 737-800 and a P-3 is a Lockheed Electra. C-130's are huge turboprops. None can land on a carrier deck.

But they sure as hell tried to make the C-130 a carrier based airplane...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3536
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
No your misreading my posting, a stationary object would not consistently move away from the sat so the pings including the end ping would not match reality. We know the pings were moving and a stationary plane can't really move while also being stationary. (That is breaking the laws of physics)
OK, sorry, your explanation above seems so far away from:

Quoting tomlee (Reply 125):
This is why having it stationary would have resulted in different pings (including the end one) and the end area would not even come close to getting near conspiracy land.

He's just saying that the plane hadn't landed and was still sending out pings, which is one of the theories people have put forth here - that it was pinging while sitting on a tarmac somewhere. It had to be moving the entire time, at least until the last ping.

These pings are only once an hour (on average), though, so we don't really know what might have happened after that last ping.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 228):
If the aircraft is moving along that 40deg inclination circle, it would give the same ping distance as if it was stationary on the 40deg inclination circle (while it isn't)... correct? So why would we see it stop far before the 7th ping?

If it had landed somewhere earlier on, it would have pinged from the same distance more than once, and according to Inmarsat, it didn't do that. So it was flying through all the pings. The only landing it could have made would have been after the last ping.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:33 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 227):
This is duplicated a lot and there are many news reports on the interviews

Sorry. Missed that somehow. Thanks. I will cast my lot with those who say that it is possible the plane could have been stationary on the ground (or water) with the SATCOM box still powered at the last ping. (If I had to wager money, though, I would say the plane is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean somewhere.)
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
hivue
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:37 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
How many planes have disappeared for weeks and then turned out to be stolen and everyone lived.

Agreed. After 2 weeks MH370's silence has become deafening. It suggests to me the silence at the bottom of the ocean.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
davidzill
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:26 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:39 pm

I believe 370 is committed to the depths of the sea in an ocean where depths can reach over 5 miles.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:43 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 238):
Agreed. After 2 weeks MH370's silence has become deafening. It suggests to me the silence at the bottom of the ocean.

As sad as it might be that is the likely/probable situation. I just hope they can find something soon so the process both regulatory and emotionally can progress to the next stage.

Quoting hivue (Reply 238):
I believe 370 is committed to the depths of the sea in an ocean where depths can reach over 5 miles.

The deep ocean while presenting a pretty huge technical challenge is probably more complicated by the rough surface conditions than the depth as you need surface support ships to send deep sea ROVs and since it can take a long time to find the primary debris field unpredictable/intense weather up top especially in that area is concerning.
 
solarflyer22
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 222):
Also while everyone wishes and hopes for everyone on board to still be alive the simple matter is that it isn't going to be tha

So, I'm a little confused by the technical arguments here despite knowing a fair amount about satellites and orbits. In the first 6 pings, does it actually matter in regards to finding the wreckage? I mean my point of view is draw a 600 mile radius around the last ping and start looking. You figure that's how far it could have gone after the last ping, include some glide time after gas ran out etc.

When I look at the two arcs, I immediately look toward the southern one and toward the end. My "gut" tells me that's where it is and I would have scrambled there right from the early one Yes, its not 100% science but I think I understand the final trajectory and you can extrapolate from that. The other 6 pings only tell me so much.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:46 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 229):
Not feasable. A P-8 is a 737-800 and a P-3 is a Lockheed Electra. C-130's are huge turboprops. None can land on a carrier deck.

The closest are EP-3E ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EP-3E ) and E2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-2_Hawkeye). Not sure though if these aircraft can be used for the same purpose P-8 and P-3 are being used; but i wonder if those 2 aircraft types can still be used for the "visual" scanning of the oceans that is being done in which case those 2 carrier based type along with other aircrafts and helicopters launched from a carrier would still have more air time over the area compared to land based aircraft.
 
liquidair
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 2:01 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:48 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
Quoting hivue (Reply 238):
Quoting davidzill (Reply 239):

be that as it may, and despite previous occasions, the fact of the matter is

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 233):
To pass them off as already dead, is irresponsible.

A little sensitivity wouldn't go amiss, i don't think.

Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
Allowing any theory to go is going to cause a waste of time, resources, money, manpower which in my opinion is irresponsible.

That I just plain do not agree with- It would be ill advised to wear blinkers in a case like this- all avenues MUST be explored, until you find proof that discounts the incorrect ones and eventually leads to the correct path.
trying to stop my gaseous viscosity go liquid
 
LTC8K6
Posts: 1538
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:54 pm

This is like looking for a needle in a haystack, but you can't find the haystack...
 
nupogodi
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:58 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:55 pm

I think, regarding carriers, helicopters would probably be most useful and I recall someone saying that just such a ship is en-route.
A man must know how to look before he can hope to see.
 
tomlee
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:01 am

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:57 pm

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 241):
So, I'm a little confused by the technical arguments here despite knowing a fair amount about satellites and orbits. In the first 6 pings, does it actually matter in regards to finding the wreckage? I mean my point of view is draw a 600 mile radius around the last ping and start looking. You figure that's how far it could have gone after the last ping, include some glide time after gas ran out etc.

When I look at the two arcs, I immediately look toward the southern one and toward the end. My "gut" tells me that's where it is and I would have scrambled there right from the early one Yes, its not 100% science but I think I understand the final trajectory and you can extrapolate from that. The other 6 pings only tell me so much.

People just want to play SAR expert for the day. I would too, but the data coming form the AMSA and NTSB work looks good to me so I don't see the point in us "experts" doing the same thing again. Many people got confused about what the arcs mean coupled with the plane moving constantly and that it must end on the arc last arc to be even reality based.

Many people want to use the intermediate pings which we already know show consistent movement to support theories related to (spoofing a sat modem, landing a plane covertly for two weeks, landing in the ocean to steal cargo?, and various other conspiracy theories where there would be some anomaly or pause in the pings) which they don't as the public interviews directly state and other more level headed people just want to see how direct and how the estimates of the NTSB compare to their own.

In terms of SAR the last arc and final estimates are what they need to use. The intermediate pings are already factored/plotted/considered by inmarsat and the NTSB. The other 6 pings are in the more distant past they calibrated and showed the path to the 7th ping they were not ignored in building the refined estimates.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:58 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
How many planes have disappeared for weeks and then turned out to be stolen and everyone lived.

We all know the answer... sadly... none...

Quoting tomlee (Reply 231):
See summary posts in previous threads its a pretty common thing that pops up here. Grouped together because they are all conspiracy theories.
Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
Allowing any theory to go is going to cause a waste of time, resources, money, manpower which in my opinion is irresponsible.

I don't entertain the "hide the airplane in the northwest" theory. What I wanted with the intermediate pings was only to find where along the arc is the most likely position of the last ping because my interest is for the world to find the plane and then we can get on to the next stage. Finding it, in my opinion is important, regardless of the aircraft being intact or in pieces over land or underwater. So please do not slap my reasoning by thinking I am with the "oh it must have been hidden in the desert somewhere" bandwagon. I just want the plane found!

Quoting tomlee (Reply 234):
In my view if everyone is alive and safe and sound with a perfectly intact plane then that situation is not a concern until someone comes up with demands or something else. But if someone is out there in the ocean or land in that extremely but more likely case where they survived a crash they need to be found now and fast. (Entertaining landing theories would divert resources away from this and that is morally wrong)

This is what the common ground is and should be. Those who say, "scrap the search, it's landed in Pakistan", is irresponsible, and perhaps immoral too.
However, saying that "if it landed, then this is going to be extremely difficult to find because (insert whatever reason)", is not irresponsible. (mine would be, "because if flown afterwards it would have flown without the satcom active, which is our last link to the aircraft.")... Any credible lead, is a good lead at the moment.
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:58 pm

Quoting tomlee (Reply 178):
The images are from DigitalGlobe which is a commercial sat imaging company. If you have the money you can buy the highest quality images they can produce.
Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 184):
Actually DigitalGlobe is allowed to take images above commercial grade resolution, but can sell those only to US Military, 50cm is the cutoff. They have two sats one with 46cm another with 25cm.

I'd think most countries capable of having spy satellites probably assume other countries have satellites capable of providing better resolution than what's commercially available. Personally, I don't think the images that were released yesterday were intentionally blurred. What's more closely held as a state secret is the time that it takes to turn around an image once a satellite has been tasked.

Some thoughts on a comment posted several "parts" of this thread ago. I believe someone said that the crew has the option of pulling the breaker or in some way turning off the DCVR/DFDR if an event happens that is resolved and they want to save the recording. IIRC this is primarily due to limitations in the recording media (i.e., it records voice for 2 hours).

The last revision the FAA made to the CVR and Digital Flight Data Recorder Regulations resulted because, "The information recorded on cockpit voice recorders (CVRs) and Digital Flight Data Recorders (DFDRs) has not always been sufficient to support the NTSB%u2019s investigations."

At that time, the NTSB recommended that for all aircraft manufactured after January 1, 2003, "Both recording systems should be capable of recording all mandatory data parameters covering the previous 25 hours of operation and all cockpit audio and controller pilot datalink communications for the previous two hours of operation."

That should be revisited. If for some reason they find the CVR and DFDR and all we have is dead air, we of course can make some assumptions. But with aircraft capable of flying for well over 10 hours and flash memory capable of recording an order of magnitude more than that, we should at least record the gate to gate time.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
Kaiarahi
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:55 pm

RE: MH370 Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 41

Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:00 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 224):
What I would like to know, is any of these search aircraft capable of being supported by an aircraft carrier? If so, that would go a long way towards shortening the amount of time it would take to get to the site.
Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 229):
Not feasable. A P-8 is a 737-800 and a P-3 is a Lockheed Electra. C-130's are huge turboprops. None can land on a carrier deck.
Quoting photolppt (Reply 235):
But they sure as hell tried to make the C-130 a carrier based airplane...

  

To which I would add that most carrier aircraft are not suitable for searching.
Empty vessels make the most noise.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos